Changes to be introduced to ETSI Guide STF 279 Changes to be introduced to ETSI Guide ETSI EG 201 399 v1.3.1 & Pro-forma ETSI SR 001 470 v1.1.6 Document STF 279 020 STF 279 made a decision in the early stages of its work to make as much information as possible available in the public area of ETSI’s FTP server. This was done in order to provide as much transparency as possible given the subject area and many stakeholders. However the documents STF279/020 & 21 (which have been made available today) reflect the considered view of the STF as a whole & prevail over any views expressed in other documents. Together they form the substance of the Milestone B report. Document groups 12 and 13 constitute the formal deliverables for Milestone B Within this presentation the word Manufacturer is equally applicable to a body bringing product to market.

Introduction Substance of Guide and Pro-forma remains sound EG & SR could have been applied more rigorously Tone & context no longer appropriate Different emphasis would be appropriate Introduction Point 1 In general the substance of the EG and SR remains sound and is not responsible for the specific HS problems drawn to the attention of the STF. Point 2 STF279 feel that had the EG & SR been applied more rigorously, the problems may not have arisen. Point 3 However, the documents reflect a point in time when the R&TTE regime was in transition. The tone and context is no longer appropriate and may even confuse those who were not familiar with the earlier regime. Point 4 Also, the HS problems drawn to the attention of the STF suggest that a different emphasis would be appropriate in places and some specific changes have been requested by TCAM and OCG R&TTE. Accordingly, taking account of these matters and based on comments received in response to the STF Milestone A deliverable, the changes set out in this presentation are now proposed for the development of the Milestone C deliverables. 11/05/2019 STF 279

Proposed Changes EG & SR should be combined Editorial Elements of the SR Pro-forma should be incorporated in the materials supported by EditHelp Background information in section 4 of EG to be removed Any information in section 4 should be retained in an annex Standard introduction in pro-forma should incorporated into EG as an annex “Scope” of HS to be unambiguous Use of expressions such as “test suite”, “ERTS” & “other test suites to be reviewed Proposed Changes Point 1 The existing EG and SR should be combined into a single document. (and these later points show our recommendations for its implimentation) Point 2 The editorial elements of the SR pro-forma should be incorporated and maintained in the materials supported by Edithelp. Point 3 The general background material in section 4 of the current EG and which relates to the context of earlier regimes should be deleted. Point 4 Any remaining useful background of current relevance may be retained in an annex. Point 5 The standard introduction in the present pro-forma should be incorporated in the EG as an annex. (which addresses Nuno’s Concerns) Point 6 The “Scope” section of a HS should unambiguously identify the equipment it covers. (e.g FM Broadcasting equipment operating in the 88.5 to 108 MHz band I.e excluding some eastern european equipment) The HS title or technical requirements and tests specified elsewhere in the HS should not be taken to imply any further qualification of the scope of the equipment covered. Equipment within the scope that meets the requirements complies with the HS. (e.g. don’t read requirements and think it applies to your kit!) Point 7 The use of the expressions “test suite”, “essential radio test suite” and, perhaps, “other test suites” should be reviewed and their implications made clear although it may not be possible to establish rigorous formal definitions given disparate and strongly held views by different parties. (this will be concentrated on later in this presentation). 11/05/2019 STF 279

Proposed Changes EN-RT should be mandatory and restructured to remove ambiguity Where HS covers apperatus intended to be available separately, then separate EN-RT should be generated for each part EG should clarify that generally Rx parameters (other than Spurious emissions) are not to be specified in HS unless Rx directly affects Tx parameters, or a 3.3 requirement has to be fulfilled Normative References must be uniquely identified unless reference to a HS is made (at the discretion of the TB) Point 1 The EN-RT should be clearly identified as mandatory and be restructured to remove ambiguity and add clarity about the applicable requirements and tests (dealt with in Chris’s presentation.) Point 2 Where a HS covers apparatus which is intended to be available as separately supplied items (eg: DECT handsets and base stations, RFID tags and readers) then separate EN-RT should be generated for each part. (e.g. one standard perhaps with multiple EN-RT tables) Point 3 The EG should make it clear that in general radio receiver parameters other than spurious emissions are not to be specified in (HS). The exceptions to this are where a receiver parameter directly affects the operation of a transmitter parameter with a consequent risk of harmful interference and/or where an Article 3.3 essential requirement requires a receiver parameter to be specified to fulfil the obligations set out in the associated Commission Decision. (non mandatory fit Marine equipment springs to mind!) Point 4 Normative cross-references from an HS must be dated or otherwise uniquely identified to a particular edition whatever the document referenced unless the cross-referenced standard is itself a HS when the decision to make the reference dated or not shall be at the discretion of the TB(s) concerned. (This ensures for instance, EN 301 489 is up to date with the EN55022, however it also means that changes to the ITU RR do not impact on such standards, that is we don’t have to review all standards after a WRC). 11/05/2019 STF 279

Proposed Changes Informative text etc may be included in HS (but clearly identified as such) Where relationship between requirement/test and corresponding essential requirement is not evident “rationale” for inclusion should be provided (a separate informative annex is preferred) Section 6 of EG to be decoupled from annex A integrating relevant concepts from A.2 into section 6 with a checklist for confirming relevance to essential requirements The justification of all requirements against the decision tree should be removed. (However the principles indicated in the decision tree should be retained in the EG.) Where TB deviates from the guidance, OCG R&TTE SC should be informed Point 1 Informative text and annexes may be included in a HS but must be clearly identified. Point 2 Where the relationship between a requirement or test and the corresponding essential requirement of R&TTED is not self-evident, then an informative note or appendix should be added presenting the rationale for inclusion of the requirement or test.(fitting in with some of the procedures for TC SES) Point 3 Section 6 of the EG on requirements formulation should be decoupled from informative Annex A. The suggested approach is to integrate relevant concepts from A.2 into section 6 with corresponding editorial adjustment to make section 6 self-standing and with a checklist for confirming relevance to essential requirements. Point 4 The need to justify all requirements against the decision tree and all surrounding material concerning attributes should be removed. Point 5 Where a TB considers deviation from the guidance is necessary or desirable, this should be flagged to the OCG chair who, where appropriate, may request that a formal justification is developed for onward transmission by the Secretariat to the Commission and other concerned parties. (this introduces another level of Quality) 11/05/2019 STF 279

Proposed Changes Where equipment “Scoped” in HS is the object of other legislation the HS must not include normative info with regard to that other legislation unless there is an explicit cross reference in the legislation itself. Where there is no such cross reference, informative references to such legislation can be made without giving the impression that complience with HS gives presumption of conformity with anything other than R&TTE. HS should address complete application of one essential requirement under R&TTE. If not this must be made clear Informative references to specific requirements/tests relevant to essential requirements outside the scope of the HS should not be made Guidance concerning Antennas in EG should reflect the further deliberations in TCAM Point 1 Where equipment within the scope of a HS is the object of other legislation then the HS must not include normative information with regard to that other legislation unless there is an explicit cross-reference in the legislation itself. Where there is no such cross-reference, there may be informative references to such other legislation but the impression should not be given that compliance with the HS gives a presumption of conformity with anything other than the R&TTED. (E.g Automotive can be dealt with under EN 301 489 section D or many standards may have to be re-worked) Point 2 In general, a HS should address the complete application of one of the essential requirement under R&TTED. Where this is not so, then it must be made clear. (e.g 3.2 or 3.3) Point 3 Informative references to specific requirements and tests relevant to essential requirements outside the scope of the HS should not be made so as to avoid confusion about the boundaries of the presumption of compliance. Point 4 The guidance concerning antennas in Annex A.3 of the EG should be amended to reflect the further deliberations in TCAM. This will not be available before the end of this STF project (TCAM 19 is scheduled for 8 & 9 July 2005). Meanwhile, the text should reflect the basic extant TCAM advice without further elaboration. 11/05/2019 STF 279

Because of the regulatory status of a HS, statements of the following types should be avoided: Statements referring to the role of national authorities in general, for example indicating that national authorities may relax the standards requirements, ignore them or make them more severe. Statements concerning the legal responsibilities or legal roles of parties involved (manufacturers, operators, authorities etc.). Statements referring to sales restrictions, legal sanctions, obligations for entering the market, ban of sales, contractual arrangements/ relations between parties. Statements imposing obligations outside the scope of the standards, for example an obligation to perform tests in locations defined by non-technical parameters, such as manufacturers’ premises or third party laboratories. Note: Only technical requirements may be imposed to test locations. The following two slides deal with the contents of an e-mail from Dr Mike Sharpe (STF279/017) and reflect the EC wishes with regard to HS. STF 279 recommends their inclusion within the guide. 11/05/2019 STF 279

Statements to be avoided: Statements related to cases of dispute, such as "In case of dispute, the method used by the manufacturer shall be used". Note: Where alternative test methods are provided, the principle should be that compliance with the requirements may be demonstrated by either or any of the methods described in the standard. Statements including dates of regulatory application Note: If ETSI Technical Bodies find it useful to give advice in such matters, it should be done in separate documents and not included in the text of standards. This does not apply to information about national transposition of standards. Statements introducing provisional limits or requirements. 11/05/2019 STF 279

Other Proposed Changes The ETSI Technical Officer concerned should be pro-active in his/her role of advising Technical Bodies about the drafting guidance. When considering revision of HS, TB must take due account of implementation costs for industry. HS titles should be translated into all the EU languages. Point 1 The ETSI Technical Officer concerned should be pro-active in his/her role of advising Technical Bodies about the drafting guidance (e.g. ETSI Secretariat, ERM, TC-SES)(Maybe a statement at the beginning of the meeting clarifies concordance with the guide) Point 2 When considering revisions of HS, the TB must take due account of implementation costs for industry.(and indeed ETSI) (of which Nuno has concerns) Point 3 Although, perhaps obvious…HS titles should be translated into all the EU languages. 11/05/2019 STF 279

Essential Radio Test Suite (ERTS) Apperatus meets relevant HS (complying with all essential requirements/tests) = Member States presume compliance with essential requirements covered by the standard Unless HS allows essential tests to be applied on a selective basis dependent apperatus features  Relevant parts of HS applied in full to achieve compliance [but note that some tests are non-essential contrary to STF view] Where apparatus meets the relevant harmonized standards, = Member States shall presume compliance with the essential requirements covered by the standard. The presumption of compliance is assured only in the case that all requirements and tests set out in the standard have been applied and met. Unless The only exception to this is where the standard itself allows particular tests and/or requirements to be applied on a selective basis dependent on the features supported by the apparatus or some other explicit selection process in the standard. Therefore; In such a case, the relevant parts of the harmonized standard may be applied in full to achieve a presumption of compliance with the essential requirements they cover. (this deals with the confusion raised over “Optional items”) 11/05/2019 STF 279

ERTS Not permitted for manufacturer, at his own discretion to “mix and match” normative requirements/tests STF279 believes these requirements prevail, when seeking to establish the presumption of compliance This principle must be clear in all HS If a particular test may be omitted or alternative used then the test cannot have essential status (although underlying requirement is normative) The understanding of “EN-RT”, “ERTS” and “Other Test Suites” must respect this principle Point 1 It is not permitted to “mix and match” normative requirements and/or tests selected at the discretion of the manufacturer as being relevant to his product and thereby acquire a presumption of compliance. Point 2 Unless a sound legal argument to the contrary can be established, STF 279 holds the view that this is an overriding principle governing the application of requirements and tests in harmonized standards. This prevails over all other consideration or classification of tests and requirements when seeking to establish the presumption of compliance. Point 3 And This principle must be made clear in all HS. Point 4 In accordance with this principle, if a particular test may be omitted and an alternative test performed or another demonstration of compliance made at the discretion of the manufacturer then the test cannot have normative status in the HS even though the underlying requirement is normative. If the purpose of specifying a test is to aid understanding or interpretation of the requirement and the requirement itself cannot be reformulated to remove the need to specify the test, then the test must be considered “informative”. (e.g carrier power on broadcasting Tx’s can be measured in a number of ways depending on O/P I.e caliormetric or with a test Rx) Point 5 The understanding of “EN-RT”, “ERTS” and “Other Test Suites” must respect the principle. 11/05/2019 STF 279

ERTS Proposal IN R&TTE “ERTS” Applies only to Tx STF279 considers Rx parameters may be pertinent to “R&TTE essential requirements” STF279 proposes the concept of “ERTS” can be applied to the above cases (for Rx) ERTS becomes the totality of essential tests specified in a HS. {Note: you can have a test which is not essential } Point 1 “ERTS” is mentioned only in Annex 3 of R&TTED which is exclusively concerned with the transmitting parts of radio equipment. (this was discussed at length at the last meeting!) Point 2 However, as noted previously, there are two exceptional cases where receiver parameters may be considered pertinent to R&TTED essential requirements. Point 3 It is therefore proposed that for the present purposes the concept of ERTS should also include these cases. Point 4 By so doing, the ERTS becomes the totality of normative tests specified in a harmonized standard.(Which I believe is a point that Olly alluded to at the last meeting) 11/05/2019 STF 279

Conclusion Current EG states test methods should be specified only where “…the value obtained may vary according to the method of measurement employed…” Accordingly all tests specified become part of the ERTS or Other tests at the descretion of the TB concerned. Point 1 The current EG states test methods should be specified only where “…the value obtained may vary according to the method of measurement employed…” STF 279 proposes no change to this guidance. Point 2 Accordingly, where such tests are specified they become part of the ERTS or “Other tests” at the descretion of TB concerned. 11/05/2019 STF 279